003 Aug 9th My second email to Stephen
Dear bro. Genusa,
Greetings in Christ our Lord,
I really don't mean to upset you when I write, like it looks like I have, again. That just isn't my goal. And I'm not threatened, or chaffed, or have any such feelings when I'm told I am wrong. By this time, I assure you, I'm quite used to it.
I am all in favor of productive discussion, but I'm not sure how we are going to do that. You seem to be coming from the position that I am egocentric, etc. and so I don't know if you will be willing to explain yourself, feeling that it is useless. And if I disagree with what you write, regardless of how legitimate my disagreement may be, will you not just brush it off as part of the character flaw you deem me to have?
For instance, you write: "Your booklet proved that its possible to provide context to a quote while presenting them in a way that misrepresents the quotes." Now, that is a tough idea for me to accept. If I (or anyone) quoted the matter correctly, and quoted them in their proper context, then how could the quotes be misrepresented? I could see you saying that those quotes in their context must be understood in harmony with other quotes. That would seem to be reasonable. I could see you going and establishing a more full context. That would also seem reasonable. But if I ask you to explain why quotes in their context don't mean what they say, will you answer, or will you get upset again, and lodge more complaints about my lack of character?
I would think a real simple way for you to make your point, is just if you can explain me how fellowship matters should be handled in your own words, and then show me the places where bro. Roberts or bro. Thomas agree with you. If you could maybe explain to me how to go about withdrawal from error. If you could maybe explain to me what you think withdrawal means. If you could explain to me what we do if another ecclesia, or another individual refuses to honor your withdrawal.
You say that the history proves that they didn't believe what I say they believed. Is there some place on your web site where you show us just exactly what their history proves they did believe and practice? When you say "by their history" certain things are obvious, are you sure you have put the only possible explanation on the histories, that a person could understand? Some folks, as I'm sure you are aware, use histories to disprove the Bible. They can do this, because the Bible does not always give us details necessary to explain events in history outside its purview. So certain things can appear to be contradictory, when all we really need is more information. And some third hand "histories" in the world are politically motivated. Are you sure that the motive of those historians you are reading, are so pure that you discount the things bre. Thomas and Roberts plainly say, and accept things others say about them?Again, I'm not trying to upset you. I'm just trying to explore whether or not there is some basis we can find, for a productive discussion.
Sincerely,
Jim Phillips
